IR 05000410/1980009
| ML17053C136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1980 |
| From: | Feil R, Narrow L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C135 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-80-09, 50-410-80-9, NUDOCS 8012110605 | |
| Download: ML17053C136 (14) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-410/80-09 Docket No.
50-410 License No.
CPPR-112 Pri.ority Licensee:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard, West Syracuse, New York 13202 Category Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.
Inspection at:
Scriba, New York Inspection conducted:
September 9-11, 1980 r
Inspectors:
es
, Reactor Inspector date signed date signed Approved by:
L.'Narrow,'..-'Acting Section'Chic'f, Construction Projects Section, RCSES Branch date signed
/o d
e igned Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Se tember 9-11, 1980 Re ort No. 50-410/80-09 Areas Ins ected:
Routine unannounced inspection by 1 regional based inspector of qua sty contro records, storage and unresolved items.
The inspection involved 27 inspector-hours onsite by 1 regional based inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
8 ply 110 60
l
DETAILS Persons Contacted Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration NMPC
- Mr. S.
Czuba, gA Engineer
- Mr. J. Dillon, Senior Site gA Representative (Acting)
~ Mr. I. Stupal, Construction Manager Stone and Webster En ineerin Com an SPEC
- Mr. B.
Mr.
W.
- Mr. E.
- Mr. M.
- Mr. J.
F. Gallagher, Senior Resident Engineer C. Hickling, Construction Engineer J. Magilley, FgC Engineer R. Oleson, FgC Engineer E. Rogers, Chief, Office Engineer
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
The inspector conferred. with other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s (Open) Unresolved Item (410/80-05-01):
Verification of training on cadweld specification and quality of cadwelds.
A training session was scheduled and conducted on June 23, 1980 on cadwelding.
The training consisted of four general subject areas, 1) Handling and Storage of Cadweld Sleeve Pow-der, 2) Cleanings and Preparation of bar and sleeve, 3) Set up of Equipment and 4) Cleaning and I.D. Marking.
A quiz was conducted upon completion of the training session.
All cadwelders completed the training and the quiz satisfactorily.
This item remains open pending possible impact on quality of cadwelds prior to the stop work order.
(Open) Unresolved Item (410/80-05-02):
Adequacy of production cadwelds of welder who placed dimensional punch marks following the firing of the cadweld.
The cadwelder in question had 3 cadwelds rejected for punch marks and 1 for welder identification.
The contractor had five (5) sister test splices fired.
These were deliberately set off center from 1" to 1 1/2".
The minimum failure strength from pullout test was 63,500 psi for the splice which was 1 1/2" off center.
This is 1000 psi greater than the minimum strength required.
Additional mockup testing was requested by the licensee to determine the maximum offset which could be tolerated and still meet the minimum yield required (62,500 psi).
Five (5) additional mockup testing splices were
)
performed by SPEC.
Two splices offset 1 1/2" passed the minimum tensile test.
Three offsets of 1 3/4" did not pass the tensile test.
The strength developed in rebar for these three cases was 52,000 psi, 51,750 psi and 54,000 psi.
SPEC provided a map of the location of the splices performed by the cad-welder in question.
SSWEC has evaluated the situation and has concluded that no corrective action need be taken regarding the mapped cadweld splices.
This item remains open pending the evaluation and determination of the feasibility of removing additional splices made by the cadwelder in question.
(Closed) Infraction Item (79-05-01):
Failure to evaluate nonconformance for possible reportability in accordance with 10,CFR 50.55(e).
SPEC has issued an Interoffice Memorandum (IOM) which provides instructions for review of potential reportable items.
The IOM provides for submitting a
potential reportable item in writing to the project engineer with a copy to the Lead Licensing Engineer.
The Lead Licensing Engineer will prepare details, coordinate with other disciplines and insure review by appropriate parties to consider if the problem is 1) reportable, 2) potential report-able or 3) not reportable.
The SKWEC project engineer will notify the licensee within 5 days of the initial report.
If the report is a poten-tial or actual under
CFR 50.55(e),
a 30 day report and a
CFR 21 evaluation should be conducted.
A Project Guideline, PG25, formalizing the above was issued on August;-21, 1980.
Facilit Tour The inspector observed work acti vities in progress, completed work and plant status in several areas of the facility during the course of the inspection.
Presence of quality control inspectors, quality control records, conformance with procedural requirements and equipment preser-vation was observed.
The inspector conferred with craft personnel, super-
.vision and quality inspection personnel as such personnel were available in the work areas.
Specifically the inspector noted 3 containment penetrations without pro-tective covers.
These were subsequently covered.
The present schedule for inspection of penetrations is monthly.
The licensee plans to request an increase in frequency because of the numerous uncovered penetrations found between inspections.
Status of Construction The inspector was informed that the facility is ~29% complete.
The pro-jected schedule for completion of the facility has been forwarded to NR v
/
Operating License Application Date January 1983 Construction Completion Date
- Fuel 'Load Target Date Commercial Operation December 1985 March 1986 May 1986 The above schedule dictates that the work force increase to an estimated 2000 persons by mid-. 1.98l and continuing at that level until com-pletion of construction in 1985.
5.
ualit Control Records The inspectors reviewed the following quality control records for confor-mance to specifications.
Reactor Controls Inc.
RCI Three nonconformance repor ts pertaining to fitup of Control Rod Drive housing supports (closed).
ITT Grinnel Deviation Report No.
750 749 748 748 747 Broken mounting stud not replaced for downcomer DPB58.
No base metal tearage on DPB58:
(Open)
Spool pieces not fabricated to correct length - Spool pieces will be reworked in the field (Open).
Spool pieces not fabricated to correct length - Spool pieces will be reworked in the field (Open).
Spool pieces fabricated too long -. Rework in the field (Open).
Data report not signed by Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company representative
- Signed report subsequently obtained (Closed).
746 745 743 736 735 734 733 732 5 piping penetrations at elevation 240 of drywell floor do not meet tolerance due to massive rebar interference - The penetrations are acceptable
- sufficient tolerance exists to preclude structural interference.
(Closed)
A subsequent review by NNPC revealed that not all pene-trations were acceptable.
Further review in progress (Open).
Tack welds holding downcomer DPB-15 broke loose due to worker interference DPB-15 relocated in design location and tack welded in place (Closed).
Welding procedure used to weld 814 rebar not in accordance with specification.
Welding was done in accordance with AWS D12. 1, Reinforcing Steel Welding Code (Closed).
Downcomer DPB has had one stud broken off.
Ok as long as
spacing requirement is retained (Closed).
Shaft rotation of Service Water pump not performed for 9/79.
All other shaft rota-tions done on schedule (Closed).
All S8WEC Category 1 components tested in accordance with ITT Grinnel gA Program.
Welding done by construction vis-a-vis shop.
Sister welds required to be tested.
Melding inspections done under Grinnel gA program (Closed).
No PM card on Diesel Fire Pump.
.PM sub-sequently performed (Closed).
.Nelson studs on some CRD plates not installed properly.
The studs were installed in accordance with ESDCR C11063 (Closed).
No items of noncompliance were identifie )
Reactor Vessel in Place Stora e
The inspector reviewed the interim storage instructions for the reactor vessel.
These instructions incorporate the storage requirements of GE Procedure No. 22A4645, Site Receiving and Storage of RPV with Shop, Inter-nals.
The in place storage requirements provide a system be installed which assures that the reactor internals have a Nitrogen (Nz) blanket.
This system consists of a Nz supply, a pressure regulator for allowing gas flow only when the internal pressure of the RPV is less than 2 inches of water, a flowmeter indicating in cubic feet per hour (cfh) and the necessary manifold.
The flow rate will be set between 5-10 cfh.
The inspector verified that the Nz supply and necessary equipment was in place and functioning as required.
A shelter has been provided for the Nz supply.. At the time of the inspection the RPV was being voided of oxygen with a full supply of Nz through the manifold.
When the RPV has been voided of oxygen the storage instructions will be implemented and a daily surveillance documented on the Nitrogen Purge History sheet will be initiated.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Control Rod Drive H drauli c Control Units CRD The inspector inquired about the inspection status of the CRDs, espe-cially the seals, inasmuch as the units had been in storage since March 1976 and would not be functionally tested until 1985.
An annual inspection by General Electric Company (GE) representatives of 5 selected CRDs has been conducted since 1977 in accordance with SSWEC Specification No.
SMD-1 and GE Document No.
22A3126.
These documents specify that 2X of the units will be inspected to verify that the units are dry and in satisfactory condition.
A nitrogen pressure of 15-25 psig has been placed inside each CRD to hold the drive piston in place and to maintain a dry condition.
During the inspection on 1/30/78 oxidation of cadmium parts was noted.
This was verified to be corrosion of sacrifi-cial cadmium plating.
The condition was also noted during the 11/7/79 inspection by the GE representative.
The inspector expressed concern that there might be deterioration of the elastomeric '0'ing seals in the CRDs since the CRDs have been and will be in storage for 9 years prior to use.
The GE Equipment Storage Docu-ment No. 22A3126 makes reference to the fact that some equipment such as O-rings, shaft packing, and gasket material may deteriorate in long term storage despite optimum conditions.
The document recommends that the licensees pre-operationed maintenance program identify and schedule pre-curement for replacement of deteriorated part This item is unresolved pending verification that the licensee has a
program to insure that parts subject to deterioration are identified and inspected and a determination made that the component part is satisfactory to perform its intended function prior to the issuance of an operating license (80-09-01).
8.
Lake Water Tunnels The inspector was informed that a verbal Stop Work order had been issued for the placing of the mud mat in the lake tunnels.
A series of pours had been made wherein the contr actor, S. J.
Groves and Sons Company, had not performed curing in accordance with SSWEC Specification No.
NNP2-G003E, Lake Water Tunnels.
The specification invokes ACI301 for curing of con-crete.
Specifically in preserving moisture, application of absorptive mats or fabric be kept continuously wet.,
Numerous SPEC quality assurance inspection reports identified the lack of proper curing.
The contractor failed to correct the situation in a timely manner; hence the Stop Work order.
Subsequently the Stop Work order was lifted after S&WEC had insured that corrective programatic changes had been made and that S. J.
Groves and Sons Company was conforming to the specification.
'o items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncom-pliance or deviations.
Unresolved items discussed during the inspection are detailed in Paragraph 7.
10.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee's representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on September 11, 1980.
The inspector suomarized the findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors comments.
The inspector discussed clarification details of the inspection by tele-phone with the licensee on September 19, 198 I g
"~)